Every claim traces to the words behind it, or it does not appear.
Strata reads successive versions of a proceeding, establishes exactly what changed, maps each change to the obligations and filings it touches, and routes an action to a named reviewer.
The part that matters is what it will not do. A statement whose citation fails verification is withheld — not greyed out, not shown with a confidence score and a disclaimer. Withheld.
The compliance date for the updated load forecast moved from March 1, 2027 to June 1, 2027.
§ 7.1 · v2 · verified“…equals or exceeds 20 megawatts (MW).”
Two claims from the same proceeding. The second has no statement to show you, because the system could not substantiate one. What sits in its place is the reason, and what the source actually says at those offsets.
How it works
One stage calls a language model. Every other stage is deterministic, and the one that decides what may be asserted calls no model at all.
Each filing is stored byte for byte and hashed. Passages carry stable character offsets, because an offset is checkable by reading the bytes between two integers.
Two versions in, typed changes out. A pure function — no model, no clock. When a section is renumbered rather than edited, alignment confidence drops and the change escalates instead of asserting.
The only stage permitted to call a model. It judges whether a change matters. It is never asked whether a change exists.
The gate. It re-reads the stored filing at the cited offsets and compares for equality, not similarity. A paraphrase is what an auditor will not accept.
Draft orders produce monitor and comment. Final orders produce comply, with an effective date. The two never share a code path.
Every decision, approval and threshold change lands in an append-only, hash-chained trail carrying the actor, the timestamp and the citation.
What it refuses to do
Most of this category is built to always have an answer. A compliance tool that is confidently wrong is worse than one that says nothing, because the analyst who cannot trust the citation has to re-read the source — which is the work the product claimed to remove.
It will not paraphrase an order
Citations are compared for exact equality after normalisation. Whitespace and smart quotes fold; digits, units and dates never do.
It will not report a percentage over five items
Counts state their denominators. Precision the sample cannot support is a way of being wrong that looks like rigour.
It will not let a synthesis hide what it excluded
Every summary states how many findings it rests on and how many were withheld, at equal weight. A conclusion that quietly drops what it could not substantiate is the failure this product exists to prevent.
It will not let one person approve their own reading
The analyst who interprets a change is never the person who approves the action that follows. Authorship is read from the audit trail, not from a checkbox.
Who it is for
A regulatory affairs analyst at a multi-state investor-owned utility. The person who reads the docket, works out what changed, and tells the business what it must do.
Not counsel, not the compliance officer, not an executive. One user, designed for deliberately. A multi-state holding company does not run one open docket — it runs one per jurisdiction, each on its own procedural clock, each amended independently, and no single filing tells the company everything it now owes.
See a proceeding move through it
Three versions of one docket, the changes between them, and a claim that refuses to assert itself when its citation does not check out.
Sign in to Strata